Sorry Steve, but you appear to be on the drivers side. Whether you are or not is immaterial as that is how it appears. Much like ‘driven into’ in the video evidence (which was the judges take on it) whether the car DID or DIDNT drive into the teacher is difficult to tell but it APPEARS that way, so that is how it is handled.
Sitting on the bonnet of the car, if that’s what happened, does not take away every non-violent action the driver could take.if the driver was reasonable he could have got out and discussed it with the teacher like a grown up.
Also, as i have already said in a previous post above, the teacher had no other choice than to do all in his power to prevent the driver from entering the school grounds or face prosecution if the HSE had seen/heard about it. The HSE can prosecute even without an incident happening.
“…reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts and omissions at work.” Does not say it has to result in injury, only may be effected.

Thanks for that aracer, looks like a fun thread to kill some time with!

allthepies – Member
That recently revealed spreadsheet of STW forum member categorisations needs a good old update. This thread would provide some useful reference material.

Must have missed that?? Mind you, I am new!

but in this case it was of no use and only served to escalate the situation and put peoples health and safety at risk

also, the only person who escalated, or even caused the risk, was the driver

He has a duty first and foremost to his own health and safety and that of others on the school site, as we all do in our place of work.

Wobbliscott, the HASAWe Act 1974, Section 7 ACTS and OMISSIONS. Read it.
His ACT of not moving from his spot would not have effected the safety of himself or others, as the driver is licensed and should know not to move into a pedestrian. If he OMITTED staying put, as his instruction on safety grounds (as stated in the letter sent to parents) told him to, that OMISSION would have increased the risk of injury to the schools’ children and therefore he would be in breach of Section 7 and liable to prosecution, as would the responsible manager (read: Headteacher). So you are talking crap, sorry.

There’s always a choice Steve, leave home earlier, arrange flexible working (if possible for your employer) pay for a taxi drop off/pick up, use school buses (if kids are old enough). They may not be great options, but they are options.
And I’m pretty sure the blame lies not with the school itself but with the local authority (council) as they are the ones who design and build, although I could be wrong.

As I said earlier Steve, THAT is the problem.
Forethought and planning would reduce these problems, and associated risks, massively.
But again, that doesn’t excuse bad driving/parking/attitude on drivers part.

Sorry Steve, but your last point adds nothing to this particular situation.

I drive past a (primary) school to get home from work, it is after school finish, but the number of cars still parked at the side of the road is still high (and every side street near it). The school was renovated a few years ago, and part of that was to re-do the staff car park. An off road waiting area would have been easily within the realms of design possibility to reduce risk to the kids for crossing the (fairly high use) road, between parked cars, and near industrial units so large lorries coming and going past. This wasn’t done, which is a missed opportunity to help alleviate the problems for parents who have no choice but to drive kids to school. That doesn’t mean, however, that those same parents can do whatever they want or park wherever they want because they are in a car.

How’d I do that North?
Might solve the problem without buying a new light!

The place is nuts! I only did 3 tracks on the main side (as I had a freebie skills session booked with Tony from EvolveMTB) and time limited but $hit, some of it looks terrifying.
Hope to get back there to try out the rest at some point and see how big my nuts really are!

Friend of mine went yesterday and said it was really good.

Thanks for the input pdw

Awesome idea StuF

Again, not arguing with the outcome of the trial as such, as I believe he didn’t do enough to avoid the collision.
What I do not agree with is the fact that the pedestrian must have been, to some extent, negligent on her part for crossing where/when she did. I do not want to make any less of the tragedy of her death but this was largely ignored, and sends out the wrong message.

If, in the closing statement, the judge had said she was partly at fault and pedestrians need to ALSO take more care of their surroundings, but it was still within Charlies power to stop or lessen the collision i wouldn’t have a problem.

^^This

I completely agree, that wasn’t quite the point I was making though.
There may be no legal requirement for it but surely its COMMON SENSE?
I wouldn’t dream of crossing a road without checking its clear. I do happen to like being alive and uninjured.

The point being, it hasn’t been even discussed as a cause (whether or not i think it should effect the sentence), and it reinforces the ‘don’t need to take consequences of my actions’ mentality that A LOT of people have. Just look at the number of drivers who speed/use mobile/drive too close/break too late/drink and drive…… but those bloody cyclists/pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road.

imnotverygood – Member
How exactly did she address it?
Quite clearly the pedestrian did negligently step into a live lane of traffic – the outcome is sufficient evidence for that. From my reading of the judge’s comments that negligence was pretty much discounted. Sure that might seem like passive victim blaming, but ultimately the one person who could have done something different which would have guaranteed that the collision didn’t happen was the victim.

Funnily enough. Whenever a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle, unless the collision takes place in the pavement, it usually involves the pedestrian stepping into the path of the vehicle. Seeing as most vehicles move slower than the speed of light, there is also pretty much always a degree of negligence associated with that act. When that happens it is the responsibility of the vehicle ‘driver’ to take reasonable action to avoid the idiot. Given the negligence of the pedestrian is pretty much a given and not accepted as a mitigation when the vehicle concerned is a car, I’m not sure why you think it is so significant in this case.
POSTED 5 HOURS AGO

*having not seen the evidence/CCTV footage…*
This is where the underlying issue that is causing the difference of opinion is located. The fact a pedestrian either a) didn’t pay FULL attention before walking out in tho the road or b) was paying attention and did so anyway, has been completely discounted. People may call ‘victim blaming’ but she wouldn’t be a victim if she had looked/listened before crossing AS ALL CHILDREN ALL TAUGHT (if indeed she didn’t look/listen).
But what makes it worse is the 2nd bold, why is this a given? How can we accept that. This is basic road safety. If she was paying attention, why did she not know that she would have to stop in the middle of the road?
I do think that Charlie was partly to blame, and that his actions before he even left the house showed that maybe he shouldn’t have been on the road, but in a court case this unusual and media-scrutinized, and therefore being seen/heard by a lot of the general public, to basically say “if you walk out into the road without looking and get hit its not your fault” is a massively irresponsible blunder.

I use a set of magicshine mj880 on the bar already and they’re great. Just need something that sits lower to the helmet that’s all. Other than that I can’t fault the 872s, just the attachment issue that spoils it

Thanks for the suggestions. Will have a look al them tonight.
Any other left field suggestions?

Seriously considering an exposure of some type as long as I got the monies! Just wondering if anything else is worth considering

Havent used him yet but Dave @ rsf suspension specialist in Plymouth seems to be the go to for most riders in Devon and Cornwall.
Only heard good things from everyone who mentions him. Takes posted work.

^^^ this

How about a bit of puke on the shirt?

Would it be worth it though…?

^^^this

Go to the bog and sh1t your pants. They’ll send you home pretty sharpish then…

Only use mobile speed cameras and fixed average speed cameras and paint them the same colour as the surroundings so you cant see them.

How many times do people need to be caught and fined before they stop?

Also, I 2nd Downsheps idea. Been saying the same for a while now.

Because they can SEE the cameras so can get away with it

Haha! Yeah, I have just remembered the comments of lawns and fences I’ve read for other ‘new’ threads :)

Still fairly new so need to get better at remembering the rules of this place!

*watching for later!*

This whole story never cesses to amaze me. What a feel good factor! This is the sort of stuff the news should be made of, not the usual BS.
Surprised its not on STWs front main page yet…

Love my Nano-X. I use the small pins for all but the outside edge where I use long for a bit more bite.

The jury system would work, and work well but for one important factor… it is the GENERAL PUBLIC who sit as jurors. And as I have said before the general public is stupid. They are also biased to some degree due to being human.
Having read all 14 pages of this thread, there are very good arguments and counter arguments throughout. From people who have at least a basic understanding of what is happening. Joe blogs, who doesn’t cycle, and drives everywhere in his Mondeo won’t think this far in depth. Even if this level of information IS given in court, it would be highly unlikely that they could all agree on who is at fault and by how much.

Er, dunno. I should probably sort that out.

Please, I always enjoy your columns and blogs on The Kerb

Whens your next column Bez, I’ve been waiting ages!

It’s hate that needs to be outlawed.

Good luck with that.

On a serious note, what you are proposing isn’t really a bad thing, and teaching kids from a young age is definitely the way to minimise it, as hate serves no purpose as far as I can see, but humans don’t work like that.

Not an awful lot as I hadn’t been born yet

And that’s what needs to change.

I don’t think you should be free to hate. If you do hate then that’s your own thing, and you need to address your internal inadequacy, not seek others to indulge it.
You should NOT be free to express that problem publicly, or seek to notmalise it

I can see your point and agree to a certain extent but using this example from above:

“I hate people who eat marmite”

^ allowed, although prepare to be questioned, challenged and ridiculed

“I think you should hate people who eat marmite”

^ grey area? you’re allowed to express that view, but it’s not nice

“I think we should hurt people who eat marmite”

^ not allowed
Going with what you are saying, you cannot say “I hate marmite” which MUST have an impact on freedom of speech as surely this ‘level of hate’ is not the same as ‘I hate muslims/blackpeople/scum sucking tories’

Or until the sponge grows into a giant hateful fungus monster that threatens to consume the draining board…

We have a new winner.

The problem with the festering argument is there will ALWAYS be some kind of festering resentment/hate in people for something. Whether it is logical or not, it will not go away. What will (hopefully) is the actions from these feelings and the spread of them to others.